If you have ever heard the classic scientific warning that "correlation does not imply causation" and did not understand what that saying meant, this is a perfect example. Just because two things are happening at the same time does not necessarily mean that one caused the other.

Analysts typically spring this trap when the connection is not as obviously flawed as it is in this case. The human mind is extremely good at seeing patterns -- even when they are not there.

Does correlation never indicate causation? No, that is clearly false as well. In fact, correlation is a necessary condition for causation -- necessary but not sufficient.

The best way to expose this trap appears to be to imagine the counterfactual. In the case above, imagine what it would be like if all those southerners actually had passports. Would that, in turn, reduce any of the known risk factors for diabetes? Unlikely. It would appear to be merely a coincidence.

Should the analyst just discard the evidence at this point? The answer is "No" once again. Kicking back and pondering why this apparent coincidence exists might well yield new insights into diabetes or passport ownership or both. Even if such thinking might not seem too valuable now, who knows what the future will bring?

For those of you who find this argument particularly compelling despite what I have written, I would remind you that "Talk Like A Pirate Day" is September 19th of each year where you, too, can do your part for the environment...